AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I certainly don't agree with all that you posted, JM, but it was coherent. I gave it a thumbs up.

@realjohnboy,

About the Newt question you asked a number of pages ago: He could have designs on running for POTUS in 2012 but many have written him off-- too much baggage etc. Many think Romney is the anointed one but I see him as very problematic (Romney care in MA and Flip Flop on abortion). Both are establishment GOP but Newt is impressively bright I would love to see him debate President Obama. Newt is a professional historian and has appeared to shift even more to the right (perhaps that is telling). If I had to choose between Mitt and Newt it would be the latter. Newt's been out there networking and involved. Listen to Newt speak and listen to Mitt, Newt sounds passionate. Mitt sounds good but not passionate; more like he is on autopilot making all the right moves and actions but no fire in the belly, just my impression.

But we have a long way to go before the convention. Oh, Palin is exciting but polarizing, even within the GOP. Perhaps she might have matured by 2016 but not now. She is somewhat the kingmaker now with her endorsements. The GOP field is wide open at this point and true conservatives have no satisfying candidate. DeMint springs to mind but has expressed no interest and is really quite busy trying to get true conservatives elected to congress and fighting off the GOP establishment who refuse to see the tea party forces that might actually make the GOP relevant with American voters

Just my free opinion, the advantage of which is its price, but then its value may be reflected in that price.

So, you got any favorites?
Smile

JM

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I would say that the major difference between the Tea Partiers, and everyone else in America, is that there are a variety of functions of government that the Tea Partiers wish could just not be paid for at all, and they have no plans whatsoever for dealing with the issues that those functions currently cover- mostly because they could care less if those functions get dealt with or not, because they don't deal with them personally.

Firstly, the tea party movement is everyone else in America, every opinion poll shows that they have a huge approval and statists are the minority.
Secondly, just because big government doesn't take care of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't get taken care of. There are plenty of liberal plans for dealing with any objective that is currently taken care of by the state. Just name some issue on which you are afraid to relinquish statism and I be happy to explain how a liberal solution can take care of it even better.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

Yes we have heard it before..A charity ball for the needy, we have good meal , pat each other on the back knowing we have pissed on another fire.

1 Reply

@xris,

I like your style xris. "Hand over your cheques to some int--ter-national char--it-eeee organ-eyes--asheeeonesoonnness." Dylan did it donkey's years ago. The only cobwebs left over from that era are in the corners of some musty, neglected shed in some Oxford garden where the retired professor is winding down stylishly.

It's youthful idealism that has a lot of lessons to learn. What would be the point of addressing someone who had no lessons to learn? Or who looked incapable of learning any? And I admire youthful idealism. I was like that once. Before I came across the Glagow sea-side girls, who hunted in packs for free drinks, on holiday in Blackpool which caused me to see the mill-girls I was acquainted with at the time in a different light. And not the one they saw themselves in either.

As I grew more experienced I pondered these matters quite a lot, with the help of some renowned authors, and realised that there might well be an unfathomable mystery to it all and there's no point looking for any keys to one of those even if there is only one.

See where Dylan has got to while all the other cobwebs have been shifted in Ain't Talking.

We are not lacking in compassion. At least I'm not. We have given up on compassion. Break into--"My eyes are dim I cannot see, I have not brought my specs with me"--. I would do the slow version but it would make this post too long and I'm doing my best to keep it as short as I can. And you have to be pissed as well which I'm not.

Are you politically active?

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Firstly, the tea party movement is everyone else in America, every opinion poll shows that they have a huge approval and statists are the minority.

Snort. This is another assertion with no facts to back it up. Why don't you link to said polling?

What I've seen shows that the 'tea party' is comprised of 80% or more Republicans. It's just another name for Republicanism.

When it comes to cutting government, you're the one claiming that it can easily be done in amounts large enough to save significant amounts of money - what would you cut, and how would you cover the things which are cut using non-tax funds?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@spendius,

Politically active? just kick a few tories that admit to their politics in my presence, is that what you mean? I was once but became disillusioned.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Firstly, the tea party movement is everyone else in America, every opinion poll shows that they have a huge approval and statists are the minority.

This is another assertion with no facts to back it up. Why don't you link to said polling?

Here you go.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What I've seen shows that the 'tea party' is comprised of 80% or more Republicans. It's just another name for Republicanism.

The tea party is just liberal Americans in favor of less government. The Republicans are trying to leech of the tea party like everybody else, but the tea party actually developed in protest against the Republicans, after the Republicans became another big government party.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When it comes to cutting government, you're the one claiming that it can easily be done in amounts large enough to save significant amounts of money - what would you cut, and how would you cover the things which are cut using non-tax funds?

I would abolish all income redistribution, that's two thirds of the budget right there. If you wish to maintain statist expropriation, I'd say you should have to justify that use of force.

1 Reply

@EmperorNero,

Quote:

Keep in mind that all children start out as leftists, some grow up, some don't. Everyone on the right used to be a leftist, we understand how you think, leftists were never on the right, you can't understand how the right thinks.

Permit me to gush a little here. This should be recognized for the profound and insightful statement that it is. It approaches elegance in its simplistic statement of truth.
At first blush it would seem its purpose was to insult or make fun of leftists in a condescending way. I see it as an attempt at real world tolerance towards the left but only up to a point. That point, of course, is located at the moment in time that a person reaches (or claims to reach) free agency--where they are then responsible for their own thinking and the consequences resultant of the individual's conclusions and actions.

The first observation rings true when one recalls his/her childhood and the dependence we experienced in early youth. We had to let our parents take care of us because we had no combination of facility and experience that would allow a successful existence (stay alive). If we were lucky we had parents that encouraged ever increasing independent thinking and action. But up to a point those parents help us mature while letting making some mistakes while counseling against actions whose consequences might be dour and irreversible. Many are the children that felt their parents were just being 'meanies' when their wishes were denied. But as we grow older we often see that our parents 'become wiser' so to speak. But at some point parents die and we are on our own, period. Now days childhood has increased in length (Obamacare extends it to the age of 26). For some, its length now matches that of their lifespan.

When EmperorNero claims that the right "understand[s] how you [on the left] think" I believe it is this reality of childhood common to all that he is referring to, but EmperorNero can speak for himself. I believe that adult humans can pretty much take care of themselves without government. Government is only necessary to prevent individuals from poaching the means of others. The problem now (as it has always been) is the ever increasing encroachment of government on the individual. The U.S. Constitution's overarching purpose is to protect the individual from his own government and it can still do that but the perfect storm of leftist control of the executive and legislative branches has brought us to a pivotal point in American history. Will Buckley's 50 some year attempt at "Standing athwart history yelling, Stop!" finally turn the tide? Will the American left grow up? November may give us more information on conservative progress.

JM

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Quote:
Keep in mind that all children start out as leftists, some grow up, some don't. Everyone on the right used to be a leftist, we understand how you think, leftists were never on the right, you can't understand how the right thinks.

Permit me to gush a little here. This should be recognized for the profound and insightful statement that it is. It approaches elegance in its simplistic statement of truth.

Congratulations on supporting an unsupported statement JM. It is simplistic and makes so many assumptions that are asinine I have to wonder if perhaps conservatives have avoided growing up since they are so willing to put everything in simple childlike black and white.

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Quote:

Permit me to gush a little here. This should be recognized for the profound and insightful statement that it is. It approaches elegance in its simplistic statement of truth.

It is a falsehood, I can report as a fact - I was a right-winger for years, opposed much of what Clinton did and voted for Bush in 2000. I was raised around right-wing politics and understand intimately the factors which drive it.

I honestly believe that you bunch have it exactly backward - everyone starts out right-wing, and only some of us grow out of it. Which is to say, everyone starts out being a greedy, self-centered person, and only some mature into empathic adults.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Firstly, the tea party movement is everyone else in America, every opinion poll shows that they have a huge approval and statists are the minority.

This is another assertion with no facts to back it up. Why don't you link to said polling?

Here you go.

This doesn't reflect what you said at all. You said that the tea party movement is 'everyone else.' But from your link,

Quote:

But just 16% of voters say they are actually members of the so-called Tea Party, a loose knit group of Americans nationwide protesting big government and high taxes

While people may generally approve of the Tea partiers (though not 50% approval), very few will admit to being part of it. What does that tell you?

I would also point out that Obama has the same approval rating as the Tea Parties - 46% or more, per Ras, who rates him the lowest of all pollsters on a consistent basis. Wouldn't you agree then that he has a 'huge approval' by Americans? By your logic, he certainly does.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
What I've seen shows that the 'tea party' is comprised of 80% or more Republicans. It's just another name for Republicanism.

The tea party is just liberal Americans in favor of less government.

Liberal? Then why do they reflect decidedly Conservative positions? In fact, I would say that the modern Tea Partiers self-identify as Conservative, not Liberal.

Please use modern definitions of terms when discussing modern politics, mkay?

Quote:

The Republicans are trying to leech of the tea party like everybody else, but the tea party actually developed in protest against the Republicans, after the Republicans became another big government party.

Bull ****. The Tea Partiers have protested NO Republicans. They were formed by Lobbyists and interest groups which support the Republican party, in order to focus the nascent anger against Obama left over from the 2008 election into an Astroturf campaign, and it has worked very well - not in terms of stopping legislation, but in terms of giving pissed-off Republicans a place to vent.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
When it comes to cutting government, you're the one claiming that it can easily be done in amounts large enough to save significant amounts of money - what would you cut, and how would you cover the things which are cut using non-tax funds?

I would abolish all income redistribution, that's two thirds of the budget right there. I

The vast majority of Americans disagree with your position, and every attempt to do what you suggest has been met with dismal failure by the politicians who pushed it. What makes you think this opinion of yours has support in this country?

Quote:

f you wish to maintain statist expropriation, I'd say you should have to justify that use of force.

The populace of our country desires it to be continued - by large margins, across all political stripes. That's all the justification you need.

Your answer was simplistic and almost laughable in it's childishness. How would you satisfy the problems which are currently addressed by said 'income redistribution?' Or do you just not give a **** about them, and pretend that there would be no negative effects to ending said programs?

I think in that last, you reflect exactly what I consider to be the Tea Party idiocy - you have no plans for actually dealing with the issues, you just want to cut everything and let the chips fall where they may. As I said in the above post, this is a childish and unserious approach to governance, and likely indicative of a lack of emotional maturity.

Cycloptichorn
[/quote]

2 Replies

Quote:

http://newstrust.net/stories/2527198/toolbar?ref=sp
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution
By Angelo M. Codevilla from the July 2010 - August 2010

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors' "toxic assets" was the only alternative to the U.S. economy's "systemic collapse." In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets' nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term "political class" came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public's understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the "ruling class." And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

...

More to come on the growing perils of America's "Ruling Class."

I have decided that the O-D (i.e., Obama-Democrats) are the primary contributors to the perils of America's "Ruling Class."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

So what would you had them do then? You must pay your attention to why it was allowed to get to the position it did and who was ultimately responsible and on what ideology was it founded. Unbridled capitalism as one of its advocates told me with absolute joy is greed. Greed maketh the capitalist, greed. Greed motivated the mortgage market to buy and sell mortgages that they had convinced unworthy borrowers to obtain. Simple bankers greed that they knew in their hearts would eventually collapse. GREED , unbridled unrestricted capitalist greed.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Firstly, the tea party movement is everyone else in America, every opinion poll shows that they have a huge approval and statists are the minority.

This is another assertion with no facts to back it up. Why don't you link to said polling?

Here you go.

This doesn't reflect what you said at all. You said that the tea party movement is 'everyone else.' But from your link,

Quote:

But just 16% of voters say they are actually members of the so-called Tea Party, a loose knit group of Americans nationwide protesting big government and high taxes

While people may generally approve of the Tea partiers (though not 50% approval), very few will admit to being part of it. What does that tell you?

140 million Americans are favorable towards the tea party, 48 million Americans took the time to join the fricking thing, but that's just some minor fringe movement, eh? You have to keep in mind that conservatives have jobs.

Half of Americans don't vote, aren't interested in politics, and aren't very informed. That means practically everyone who is interested in politics is favorable of the tea party. And that despite all the misinformation in the media. That's actually pretty astounding. Those who wish to maintain the status quo of big government are clearly the minority.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
What I've seen shows that the 'tea party' is comprised of 80% or more Republicans. It's just another name for Republicanism.

The tea party is just liberal Americans in favor of less government.

Liberal? Then why do they reflect decidedly Conservative positions? In fact, I would say that the modern Tea Partiers self-identify as Conservative, not Liberal.

Please use modern definitions of terms when discussing modern politics, mkay?

Yes, liberal. That's what the word means. That "modern" definition is just Orwellian doublespeak. The tea party is per definition liberal, in either sense of the word.

Quote:

Quote:
The Republicans are trying to leech of the tea party like everybody else, but the tea party actually developed in protest against the Republicans, after the Republicans became another big government party.

Quote:
The Tea Partiers have protested NO Republicans.

Tea party rallies are often angry rants against the Republicans. Have you ever been to one?

Quote:

Quote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
When it comes to cutting government, you're the one claiming that it can easily be done in amounts large enough to save significant amounts of money - what would you cut, and how would you cover the things which are cut using non-tax funds?

I would abolish all income redistribution, that's two thirds of the budget right there. I

The vast majority of Americans disagree with your position, and every attempt to do what you suggest has been met with dismal failure by the politicians who pushed it. What makes you think this opinion of yours has support in this country?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

Quote:

Quote:
f you wish to maintain statist expropriation, I'd say you should have to justify that use of force.

The populace of our country desires it to be continued - by large margins, across all political stripes. That's all the justification you need.

If the majority desires to hunt down the Jews or gays, would that be "justification enough" as well?

The whole majority thing isn't a good argument for another reason: 60% pay next to no taxes. They don't have to pay the price. Why does it matter what the majority thinks, if it is none of their business. If the majority of your neighbors think you should go to Hawaii for vacation, would that somehow matter?

Quote:

Quote:
How would you satisfy the problems which are currently addressed by said 'income redistribution?' Or do you just not give a **** about them, and pretend that there would be no negative effects to ending said programs?

How about you be charitable with your own money?

Quote:

Quote:
I think in that last, you reflect exactly what I consider to be the Tea Party idiocy - you have no plans for actually dealing with the issues, you just want to cut everything and let the chips fall where they may. As I said in the above post, this is a childish and unserious approach to governance, and likely indicative of a lack of emotional maturity.

What wouldn't be taken care of? I asked you for any specific problem you see with liberalism, for which we require statism. Would "the poor" starve, would rubber barons eat us alive, name something.

2 Replies

@EmperorNero,

So what are you saying about figures and majorities..make your mind up. You slightly contradicted yourself .

0 Replies

@EmperorNero,

You are making a fool of yourself by insisting that modern Conservatism is, in fact, Liberal. It is not, and the very people you are talking about would be angry to hear you describe them that way.

Your answers were tangential at best, and you cut out of your response the uncomfortable facts that you don't want to deal with.

This is a pure lie -

Quote:

48 million Americans took the time to join the fricking thing,

Unless you can provide data to support this contention?

This is a pure lie -

Quote:

Half of Americans don't vote, aren't interested in politics, and aren't very informed. That means practically everyone who is interested in politics is favorable of the tea party.

It is specifically countered by your own link, which states -

Quote:

The Tea Party is definitely not a Political Class phenomenon, though. Not a single Political Class respondent in the survey said they’re a member of the Tea Party, but five percent (5%) confessed that they have close friends or relatives who are.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class say the Tea Party is bad for America. Two-thirds (66%) of Mainstream Americans see it as a good thing for the country. However, it’s important to note that only a little more than half of all Mainstream voters consider themselves to be part of the Tea Party movement.

The more one knows about politics, the less they approve of the Tea Party.

What more, from the same link you posted,

Quote:

If the Tea Party was organized as a political party, 34% of voters would prefer a Democrat in a three-way congressional race. In that hypothetical match-up, the Republican gets 27% of the vote with the Tea Party hopeful in third at 21%. But if only the Democrat or Republican had a real chance to win, most of the Tea Party supporters would vote for the Republican.

In hypothetical three-ways, the Dems will win every time. This isn't indicative of some massive swell of support.

In short, your analysis is half-baked and mostly just a cover for your assertions.

Quote:

If the majority desires to hunt down the Jews or gays, would that be "justification enough" as well?

Appeal to Extreme, logical fallacy.

Quote:

The whole majority thing isn't a good argument for another reason: 60% pay next to no taxes. They don't have to pay the price.

Yes, they do pay the price. You don't understand how taxation works.

Quote:

What wouldn't be taken care of? I asked you for any specific problem you see with liberalism, for which we require statism. Would "the poor" starve, would rubber barons eat us alive, name something.

Many poor, children and old folks would starve. There would be no national safety standards on anything. Law enforcement across state lines would become difficult or impossible. It would become far more difficult to enforce private property regulations. Police and Firefighters would be laid off in droves. Hospitals would be forced to close. International business would become more difficult. Equal rights would suffer. The list goes on and on... Tea Partiers have no solutions for any of these issues, and frankly are for the most part just jerks who don't give a **** - as long as they can keep as much of their money as possible.

Greed is what it boils down to in the end with you guys.... always. All roads lead back to you wanting more stuff.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Quote:

All those true conservatives who are paying attention realize the next two election cycles will pretty much indicate the American course of events not only domestically but, just as importantly, in foreign policy and our (American) relevance internationally.

American conservatives are distinctly unpopular abroad.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are making a fool of yourself by insisting that modern Conservatism is, in fact, Liberal. It is not, and the very people you are talking about would be angry to hear you describe them that way.

Your answers were tangential at best, and you cut out of your response the uncomfortable facts that you don't want to deal with.

This is a pure lie -

Quote:
48 million Americans took the time to join the fricking thing,

Unless you can provide data to support this contention?

Ok, 16% of voters. That's more like 24 million. Happy now?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a pure lie -

Quote:
Half of Americans don't vote, aren't interested in politics, and aren't very informed. That means practically everyone who is interested in politics is favorable of the tea party.

It is specifically countered by your own link, which states -

Quote:

The Tea Party is definitely not a Political Class phenomenon, though. Not a single Political Class respondent in the survey said they’re a member of the Tea Party, but five percent (5%) confessed that they have close friends or relatives who are.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class say the Tea Party is bad for America. Two-thirds (66%) of Mainstream Americans see it as a good thing for the country. However, it’s important to note that only a little more than half of all Mainstream voters consider themselves to be part of the Tea Party movement.

The political class? That's like... politicians? What does that have to do with informed voters?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The more one knows about politics, the less they approve of the Tea Party.

What more, from the same link you posted,

That refers to the higher echelons. Of course politicians and left-wing media pundits hate the tea party, they fear for the status quo. People in the tea party are actually more educated and informed than the general public.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
If the Tea Party was organized as a political party, 34% of voters would prefer a Democrat in a three-way congressional race. In that hypothetical match-up, the Republican gets 27% of the vote with the Tea Party hopeful in third at 21%. But if only the Democrat or Republican had a real chance to win, most of the Tea Party supporters would vote for the Republican.

In hypothetical three-ways, the Dems will win every time. This isn't indicative of some massive swell of support.

That poll wasn't all new. Recently the tea party won some hypothetical three-ways, without even being a real party.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If the majority desires to hunt down the Jews or gays, would that be "justification enough" as well?

Appeal to Extreme, logical fallacy.

Socialism lead to mass murder a few times, in fact it was the leading cause of unnatural death in the last century. It's not at all "extreme", and you can't hide behind some formal fallacy that just doesn't apply. You favor one kind of initiation of statist violence, but a slightly different kind of statist violence is too "extreme" to even address?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The whole majority thing isn't a good argument for another reason: 60% pay next to no taxes. They don't have to pay the price.

Yes, they do pay the price.

Of course, everyone pays the price of socialism, it costs us all very much. But if people don't feel that they are making a contribution, they vote for tax increases because they feel it's not their money.
Appealing to majority opinion is rather weak argument for statist expropriation if the majority is exempted from that expropriation.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
What wouldn't be taken care of? I asked you for any specific problem you see with liberalism, for which we require statism. Would "the poor" starve, would rubber barons eat us alive, name something.

Many poor, children and old folks would starve.

No they wouldn't. Humanity survived for around a million years before big government started feeing people. Free markets actually feed people better than socialism. So good that obesity correlates with poverty. Of course you can't drop dependent people from one month to the next, nobody is suggesting that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There would be no national safety standards on anything.

Now you are arguing against anarchism. Why is it that every time liberals suggest less government, statists are acting as if they want to abolish all government whatsoever by tomorrow?
Just because I don't want half of the economy to be government spending and two thirds of the budget to be income redistribution, doesn't mean that I am suggesting to abolish all safety standards.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Law enforcement across state lines would become difficult or impossible.

Again, arguing against anarchism.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It would become far more difficult to enforce private property regulations.

That's precisely the objective that government should have. It should protect property rights, and not violate them.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Police and Firefighters would be laid off in droves.

Arguing against anarchism.

Actually, police and fire fighters are being laid off in the more left-wing states, because they are broke.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hospitals would be forced to close.

No, they wouldn't. Free market health care is vastly superior to centrally planned health care.
Maybe hospitals would be in trouble if we dropped all funding tomorrow, but nobody is suggesting that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

International business would become more difficult.

Actually it would be much easier to do business without all that red tape.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Equal rights would suffer.

Unequal rights were statist institutions: slavery, jim crow laws, and today welfare. Labor laws make workplace discrimination possible in the first place. In a free market all this would go away.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The list goes on and on... Tea Partiers have no solutions for any of these issues, and frankly are for the most part just jerks who don't give a **** - as long as they can keep as much of their money as possible.

Greed is what it boils down to in the end with you guys.... always. All roads lead back to you wanting more stuff.

Greed... we are the ones paying for all those programs. It's our money. You want to steal it. How are we greedy, while you sit in your armchair feeling noble for spending our money?

And there's still that liiittle concern that initiation of violence might be immoral, even if liberty has this or that bad consequence. If former slaves couldn't get jobs, would that be an argument for slavery? Or is slavery just wrong? If my sister couldn't find a husband without forced marriage, would that be an argument for forced marriage? Or is forced marriage just wrong.

0 Replies

Obama is greedy for expansion of the accumulation of property by the federal government. Obama's most effective technique for satisfying his greed is buying votes by giving away private property.

Conservatives are greedy for expanding the power to accumulate property by private law abiding citizens.

Obama has expanded Bush's errors and added many more of his own in his relentless pursuit of more power and property for the federal government and less power and property for private law abiding citizens.

Conservatives are attempting to rescue and expand the security of the rule of law.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know